Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Louis Taylor v. Pima County, Arizona, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 17-16980 · judgment January 17, 2019
Before the decision, about 4.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Questions presented
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), this Court held that federal habeas corpus is the sole avenue by which a “state prisoner” may bring a claim that would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Id. at 487. In Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998), five Justices concluded that Heck has no application to a prisoner who has been “release[d] from custody” and who lacked an opportunity to raise his claims through federal habeas while incarcerated. Id. at 19 (Souter, J., concurring); id. at 25 n.8 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Louis Taylor was wrongfully imprisoned for 42 years. After compelling evidence of Taylor’s innocence—and of egregious prosecutorial misconduct at Taylor’s trial—came to light, the prosecution consented to the vacatur of Taylor’s conviction. But it insisted, as a condition of Taylor’s release, that he plead “no contest” to time served. The Ninth Circuit held that, under Heck, that no-contest plea barred Taylor from recovering any damages for his 42 years of wrongful incarceration. The questions presented are:
-
Whether Heck applies to a former prisoner who lacked an opportunity to challenge his conviction through federal habeas while incarcerated.
-
Whether Heck bars a plaintiff from recovering damages for his period of incarceration if the plaintiff’s conviction has been vacated and he has been released from prison pursuant to a plea of “no contest” to time served. (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Neal Kumar Katyal
Milbank LLP
For respondent
Nancy Jane Davis
Pima County Attorney's Office
Proceedings
- Mar 23 2020Petition DENIED.
- Feb 26 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
- Feb 26 2020Reply of petitioner Louis Taylor filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 12 2020Brief of respondent County of Pima in opposition filed.
- Feb 12 2020Letter of February 12, 2020 from counsel for respondent City of Tucson, AZ submitted.
- Jan 13 2020Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.
- Jan 13 2020Brief amicus curiae of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed.
- Jan 13 2020Brief amicus curiae of National Bar Association filed.
- Jan 09 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 12, 2020, for all respondents.
- Jan 09 2020Brief amicus curiae of Lucian E. Dervan filed.
- Jan 07 2020Motion City of Tucson to extend the time to file a response from January 13, 2020 to February 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 07 2020Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, City of Tucson.
- Jan 03 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 12, 2020.
- Dec 31 2019Motion of Pima County to extend the time to file a response from January 13, 2020 to February 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 31 2019Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, County of Pima.
- Dec 19 2019Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Louis Taylor.
- Dec 12 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 13, 2020)
- Oct 29 2019Application (19A464) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 12, 2019.
- Oct 28 2019Application (19A464) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 12, 2019 to December 12, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.